Christian Zionists here in US are of the very same caliber as their fanatic Muslim counterparts. There is no major difference between the end times versions of the two Abrahamic religions, except for the fact that the Qur'anic version is much more appealing to the Muslim Believers than the Christian version is to theirs (if they would use their brains).

If the prophecies of the Book of Revelation were true to their meaning then the sealing of 144,000 men, women and children from the Twelve Tribes of Israel will occur, not that of the Christians.

In Genesis 49:28 these 'lucky ones' are described as the straight descendants of the early Abrahamic Jews: "All these are the twelve tribes of Israel: and this is it that their father spake unto them, and blessed them; every one according to his blessing he blessed them."

Also the (Christian) 'Book of Revelation' describes the Christians' role in the Apocalypse as merely the 'nurses' for the advancing genetic Jews from the Twelve Tribes of Israel, who are supposed to be the principal survivors of the Armageddon.

One can only wonder about the 'nativity' of such Christians who, almost self-denying, further selflessly the 'survival' of 144,000 people of another faith and not of their own (as, at least, the 'naive believers' in the 'Hidden Imam' have the privilege to do).

Thus, according to the definition of the Christian Zionists in America, their belief in Christian faith is a "dead end road" in the truest sense of the wording. . . . Unless they're clandestinely followers of another faith and only pretend to be Christians.

Explanatory) note: Christian Zionism is the belief among American Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel, is in accordance with old Biblical prophecies and demands, rehashed as a thrilling post-Biblical end times phantasy which was written at least hundred years after Jesus' death, the so-called 'Book of Revelation', and that this possession-taking of former Palestine by the Jews must be supported by Christians all over the world "no matter what the cost".

According to the author, John (the Greek), of this post-Biblical end times thriller, a pre-condition of the final battle of Armageddon is that 12,000 members of each of the twelve Hebrew tribes must return from the diaspora to Zion.

When American Christian Zionists like John Hagee or Mike Huckabee - and some well-known posters here on the Economist blogs - talk about the “ingathering,” they're using coded language that refers to their yearning for a battle—which may come in the form of a nuclear holocaust.

This is why the Zionists in America and their tremendous influence on Congress and certain US politics, combined with our country's huge nuclear arsenal are the real threat to world peace . . . much more than the Iranian Mullahs ever could be.

Very interesting. I knew GWB, Wolfowitz and Cheney were a bit fruity and now that you have given me the apocalyptal background, I see the whole fruit bowl. It always suprised me that that Rice and Powell got railroaded into the millenial thing, as African Americans one would expect them to have more sense. Having said that, I think Rice is fruity by nature whereas Powell got hoodwinked into it.
.
Luckily Obama is now running the show and he has prevented his country getting involved in Syrian fruitery. The Israel-PNAC-AIPAC-Fruity axis must be worried, their project is coming off the rails and the destruction of Iran has been delayed.

I read your post several times and wish to say, without my own familiarity with your specific citations from the Genesis and the Book of Revelation*, I completely agree with your observation at the end: This is why the Zionists in America and their tremendous influence on Congress and certain US politics, combined with our country's huge nuclear arsenal are the real threat to world peace . . . much more than the Iranian Mullahs ever could be. . That thought is to be taken seriously.
.
[* I never knew those two books very well from my early Catholic Education [which incidentally, had the effect of converting me out instead of in although I admired and continue to admire the Jesuits for their intellectual prowess, polyglot world view and their specific teaching of an inclusive, as opposed to discriminatory, Christian love].
.
IMHO, If religion is to serve a positive/constructive (versus negative/destructive) function in human life, the best religion is no religion.**
.
[** By "religion" I simply refer to the institution that organizes people of a common faith into a group with emphatically delineated boundaries espousing a "you are for us or you are against us" ethos as matter entirely apart from theology]
.

The next best religion is a religion that teaches "Stop talking about how not to be bad. Just don't do it".
.
Btw, I also want to say thank you for your thoughtful post. I have no idea if you claim any religious affiliation - Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Bahá'í, Hindu, Buddhist..... In my frame of thinking, those labels and the trappings they attract are of zero importance except to the extent they work for some people as apriori proof of an ill-proven "spiritual superiority" and to others a permanent excuse for a grid-lock to any open, good-faith discourse on the role of religion in human life as it is lived and its bearing on public policy.

"The French and American presidents, speaking during what they believed to be a private encounter week, failed to realise that a simultaneous translation of their conversation was being broadcast to journalists outside the room.

During a discussion on Israeli-Palestinian policy, Mr Sarkozy gave an unapologetic assessment of his views of Mr Netanyahu, sayingg: "I cannot bear him, he's a liar."

Damagingly his pro-Israel credentials, the US president did not demur.

Instead he exacerbated his sin in the eyes of pro-Israeli Americans by retorting: "You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day."

Quoting you.
"[** By "religion" I simply refer to the institution that organizes people of a common faith into a group with emphatically delineated boundaries espousing a "you are for us or you are against us" ethos as matter entirely apart from theology]"
I agree. The newest religion on the rise is that of AGW. And some influential members of the AGW Religion insist that those who do not believe should be killed. Would you like the citations ?

Your non-sequiturs just keep rolling in, don't they ? THIS is your response to my request of la.výritý for a citation ? High School is truly in session.

As for "open mic's revealing the inner hatred of world leaders--especially Mr. Obama--well, that's old hat. What would be new would be a report on their rank and risible hypocrisy--nice to the face of others but holding hatred within...a point you clearly missed by making yet another non-sequitur post. Look beyond the story and at the man.

Your limp president is playing you Americans like a drum. Nero fiddled; Obama golfed--but both Republics burned.

I see.... Thanks.
.
I am familiar with "citations" and know where to get them - the for, the against and the indifferent. I also know how to read critically, including all blog comments.
.
Certainly killing is not justified for any reason. I am glad we agree on that point. It is a good point to agree on.
.
Thanks for a most enlightening exchange. I am done on this Erasmus topic. :)

I'm sorry this is not true. Many Christians believe in a pre or mid tribulation rapture, or catching away of the church. This means the millions of Christian believers who have followed the plan of salvation (repentance, baptism, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost)will be "raptured" from this world and meet Jesus when He splits the eastern skies. Because of this rapture, many non believers will come to repentance but they will have to suffer through the tribulation, including the battle of Armageddon. Only the 144,000 Jews will be excluded from the suffering and given a second chance at salvation through Jesus Christ. All other tribulation believers will be persecuted and will face death if they do not conform to the demands of the anti-christ- including the mark of the beast and the worshiping his image.

There is no coded language. Biblical prophesy has unfolded before our very eyes. There is no denying it. Christians are not yearning for nuclear holocaust. But they aren't ignoring the signs of the time.

This exchange (about Christian Millenarianism) had ended actually already Oct 3. Thus, I found your supplementary notes just now in my mailbox - and decided to respond anyway.

You wrote: "I'm sorry this is not true".

I didn't quite understand which part of my earlier comments is supposedly "not true". Your statement, "There is no coded language", points to the following of my assessments (quote): When American Christian Zionists . . . talk about the “ingathering,” they're using coded language that refers to their yearning for a battle” (end quote) - over Israel.

In the theological sense the term "ingathering" has a different meaning depending who uses it and for what reason. It was originally used in Hebrew as "qiybbuṣ galuyoth" which translates literally into "Ingathering" (of the Diaspora). It referred to the biblical promise of Deuteronomy 30:1-5, given by Moses to his followers prior to their first entrance into the "promised land" (Eretz Israel).

During the days of the Babylonian exile, the term was adopted by two Jewish heralds, Isaiah and Ezekiel. In order to elevate the importance of their proclamations psychologically they were later labelled "prophets" in the Jewish Bible. These proclamations were meant as an encouragement for the enslaved congregation to shed of the bonds of slavery and seek future freedom through a re-gathering of the exiles to the land of Israel.

It was not before Maimonides (a Jewish philosopher who lived from 1135 to 1204) that the term "Ingathering" was connected with the physical materialization of the Jewish Messiah in the Holy Land. Maimonides' views on the messiah are discussed in his Mishneh Torah. Everyone can look this up in the section Hilkhot Melakhim Umilchamoteihem (Chapters 11 & 12). In any case, according to Maimonides, Jesus of Nazareth was definitely not the Jewish 'Messiah', as is claimed by Christians and Muslims alike.

To me this is a theoretical religious debate of which neither side can satisfactorily show proof or validity. Fact, however, is that the very same Jews, who are meant by Christian Zionists when the concept of "ingathering in Israel" is used, never accepted Jesus as their "Messiah" … to this very day. Therefore, a Christian being a 'Zionist' (demanding the “ingathering of Jews in Zion”) resembles Bertrand Russell's famous barber paradox ("Who shaves the barber?").

However, even such schizophrenic interpretation of the Bible would leave me untouched if some exponents of the American Christian Zionist movement (influential born-again Christians) wouldn't use this paradox biblical prophecy to justify preemptive attacks on non-Jewish countries in the Middle East.

Though U.S. media were more or less ignoring it, the London Independent and other European news desks reported the "disturbing revelations" of - then – American president George W. Bush:

It had been the case in 2003 that George W. Bush, in lobbying the (then) French President Jacques Chirac to join the Iraq war, had evoked their "common faith" by telling Chirac that (quote): "Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East" . . . "The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled" . . . And: "This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s (the Jews) enemies before a New Age begins” (The London Independent)’.

In my mind, it stops being a matter of ‘religious freedom’ or of personal conviction when the leader of the world's strongest military power appears to be led by a ‘voice in his ear’ claiming to be "God". It is rather frightening!

For all normal Christians and non-born-again blog readers the question remains: Who the hell were Gog and Magog? Because at the time neither Chirac nor his office had any idea what Bush meant; but they knew Bush was a born-again Evangelical Christian, so they asked the French Federation of Protestants. They didn't know it either but in turn asked Professor Römer from the Faculty of Protestant Theology in Lausanne. The professor explained that Gog and Magog is biblical "crazy talk". The terms appear twice in the Jewish Bible, once as a name, and once in a truly strange prophecy in the book of Ezekiel:

"And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him.
. . .

And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armor, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:
Persia (Iran), Mesopotamia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet: Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee."

(This was eventually published in Lausanne University’s review, Allez Savoir).

I'm often asked why the 'Mashiach' of the Jewish Bible is not identical with the Christian Savior of the New Testament.

One reason is that the word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save mankind from the consequences of its own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought.

Unfortunately, the Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the wrongfully used English word "messiah" that this English appellation (or in German Messias) can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept of the "Mashiach". Rabbis therefore suggest that observant Jews distant themselves clearly from the Christian claim of the word.

Some rabbis pointed out that gentiles have told them that the term "mashiach" is related to the Hebrew term "moshiah" (savior) because they sound similar, but the similarity is not as strong as it appears to one unfamiliar with Hebrew. The Hebrew word "mashiach" comes from the root Mem-Shin-Chet, which means "annoint". The word "moshiah" comes from the root Yod-Shin-Ayin, which means to help or save. The only letter these roots have in common is Shin, which is the most common letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Therefore to claim that "mashiach" is related to "moshiah" (or engl. messiah) is a bit like saying that ring is related to surfing because they both end in "ing."

I once asked a rabbi why modern Jewish scholars don't explain openly that the use of the Jewish term Mashiach by Christians is actually an 'abuse' of its given meaning in the Holy Bible. His response was disarming: "... in order to avoid being accused again by Christians of being the murderers of Christ".

Because, according to many Christians, the Jews were "brash enough" to deny that Jesus Christ was neither the Jewish "Mashiach" nor the Son of God. Therefore the Jews were accused throughout the centuries of being responsible for the death of Christ; then, later, they were accused of killing Christian children, and finally they were accused of causing all natural catastrophes, including the Plague when it broke out in Europe in 1348.

The Jews were accused of having caused that to happen even hundreds of years after, and even after it was scientifically well established that the cause for the "Black Death" was linked to rats, cats, and personal hygiene.

The biblical "mashiach" will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5), this is why the mashiach is often referred to in the Bible as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be a charismatic, but worldly, Jewish leader, inspiring others to follow his example. In the Jewish belief the mashiach will be also a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. And he will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

It has been said in the Jewish scriptures that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be "the Mashiach". If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the biblical mission of the mashiach - as this was the case with Jesus - then that person quite clearly is not (cannot be) "The Mashiach".

Did you know that 'Millenarianism' (the American Evangelist-style end-time belief is sweeping the globe and in many places is replacing the Christian faiths that were previously dominant (e.g. in SE Asia and former Soviet satellite states)?

And were you aware that current estimates place the Millenarian (end-time) segment of Christianity at approximately 500 million and, thus, as the second largest block of Christianity after Roman Catholicism, and that the Millenarian 'end-timers' more or less replaced Jesus' Sermon on the Mount with John the Greek's Book of Revelation?

For better or worse, this is not the familiar American fundamentalism of the last century anymore.

In Shia Islam 'Imam Mahdi' is believed to return at the end of time by 'Divine Decree'; there is no other precondition for the Imam's return. The average follower of this doctrine is convinced that human activities cannot accelerate God's divine decision. Thus, "killing a lot of (Christian or Jewish) people" doesn't enhance the chances for Imam Mahdi's return. Shiite Muslims simply do not know when the Mahdi will come.

This is completely different with Christian 'end-timers'. Their apocalyptic Book of Revelation is usually seen as most concerned with the end times in the New testament.

Born again Christians and charismatic Evangelists adopted the role of end-time prophets. They remove increasingly the theological barriers that tended to restrain Christian fundamentalists from seeking to move the hands of the Biblical prophetic clock themselves.

This new type of charismatic (Zionist) Christians believe that their prophets receive the prophecy directly from God, as well as supernatural gifts, in order to bring about their mandates, which is to unleash the Apocalypse in Middle East in order to trigger the Second Coming of Jesus. Therefore they need WW III more badly than any Iranian Mullah could ever fantasize of.

Especially Jews in Israel should anticipate and understand this aggressively proselytizing and strongly end-time minded movement, which is accessing Jewish communities through its Christian Zionist activities.

In my stupendous ignorance of labels and aversion to their use, will you please enlighten me, for the benefit of my getting to learn what your (and perhaps impliedly also that of the general population in every corner of the world) association is with "Rightest"?
.
That is to say, the word that would be on the Left side of the equal sign the right side of which if we write the word "Rightist"?
.
Much obliged.

Citation John Hagee (He is founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI): “You are seeing the King of the South come together with lightning speed. . . Can you imagine what Israel faces with Iran, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Russia coming after them? The prophet Ezekiel clearly predicted this battle thousands of years ago and you are watching the players get into position with lightning speed. Jesus said, When you see these signs, lift up your head and rejoice.”

"Lift up your head and rejoice" when the world is faced with the prospect of a nuclear WW III, this is only one example of the world view of popular American end-time preachers.

BTW, AIPAC featured John Hagee on several occasions as a keynote speaker.

Their are many examples where American Christian Zionists work to fulfill their own prophecy, namely that the rest of the world will soon turn on Jews and Israel. This is often described by their prophetic preachers as a "fishers and hunters" scenario, in reference to a verse of scripture, and as seen in numerous Christian Zionists accounts.

The "fishers", read 'Christian Zionists', are to entice Jews to return to Israel, then hunters (overt Jew haters) will force the remaining Jews to Israel in a violent wave of worldwide anti-Semitism: Christians then should 'lift up their head and rejoice'.

You like it more sicko?

John Hagee — whose endorsement Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he was “glad to have” before he started the campaign - did a 180 degree turnaround when Hagee expounded the horrible 'hunting theme' by claiming that "... God sent a hunter. Hitler was such hunter". - With other words: the holocaust was the fulfillment of 'God's Will' and Hitler was the God's divine executor. When that incident came to light it led conservative Senator John McCain to renounce Hagee's political endorsement. However, John Hagee's Ministries still marketed worldwide the third of his three-sermon set which was titled "Jerusalem, Countdown to Crisis"!

About Hurricane Katrina Hagee said it was "in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.”

Haggee: "Yes. The topic of that day was cursing and blessing. … What happened in New Orleans looked like the curse of God, in time if New Orleans recovers and becomes the pristine city it can become it may in time be called a blessing. But at this time it’s called a curse."

For further background 'google' yourself under 'Christian Zionist quotes'.

Thank you for doing the research. I'm doing my due diligence now. A couple of things right off:

1. CUFI has a staff of 25. (http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer). They claim a membership of 1 million--correct or specious the truth is unknown. This looks more like a corner case minority group with very little power. This is the opposite of Iran with its millions of adherents with belief in the 12th Imam philosophy. In numbers they are not comparable.

2. To put CUFI out there as representative of all Christians without the above caveat is intellectually dishonest--not that I think you're doing that, but those pre-disposed to dislike Christian will definitely tar all Christian sects with the CUFI brush.

2. The same goes for Mr. Hagee. He appears to have the visions of grandeur you mention. At the same time no one on your American Left is reigning in Al Gore and his second chakra. And his adherents are in the 10's of millions. Some of them persuasively argue for the death of those who are termed Climate Deniers. I bring this up only in the context of Religion (AGW Religion)

3. I'll research the balance, but it would be helpful if you have citations and not force me to Google everything.

I love your stuff, keep it coming. But I must take issue with your quote-

"Can you imagine what Israel faces with Iran, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Russia coming after them?"

You forgot China.

Also,

"Lift up your head and rejoice" when the world is faced with the prospect of a nuclear WW III"

You know 'armageddon' is named after the town of Megiddo, where the Israelites met a sticky end at the hands of the Romans. At the 'end of days', aka 'the rapture', fundamentalist Christians will join their Jewish brethren at Megiddo to be lifted into heaven together, while the rest of us are left to the tender mercies of Beelzebub.

When you understand that Netanyahu and the Tea Party are working to that agenda nuclear war starts to look very possible in the Middle East, and explains Netanyahu's obsession with drawing bombs at the UN.

Sorry, but CUFI's own bio states that they are "telecast on eight major networks, 162 independent news stations, and 51radio stations throughout the globe broadcasting in 190 nations."

If you would be living in the US you would know that their "rapture theology" dominates meanwhile all other (moderate) Christian broadcasts.

"Isaiah 17:1, Is Syria War Part Of Jesus' Second Coming?" was the headlined question seriously asked by the mainstream US web publication Huffington Post.

BTW, the Huffington Post is currently ranked #1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank, which bases its list on Alexa Global Traffic Rank and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.

Mainstream news coverage, as e.g. also the title of this very Economist blog ("Millenarianism"), is given to the expectation of Jesus' Second Coming after which a divine power will supposedly reign on earth from Jerusalem for a thousand years (the millennium). All this proves that Christian 'Rapture Theology' is meanwhile 'mainstream' in the English speaking world, and not merely "a corner case minority group with very little power".

However, a fact widely ignored by the Protestant English media is the naming of Hitler's 'Tausendjährige Reich' (Thousand Year Empire) after the Rapture Theology. German authors, knowing the true genesis of the naming better, make the connection easier to Millenarianism (from Latin millēnārius, "containing a thousand").

Historians like Klaus Vondung were pointing out this connection constantly'; so in his book, "The Apocalypse in Germany" where he states that Hitler's Thousand Year Reich gave birth through the apocalyptic ideas described in the Book of Revelation after which the Third Reich was coined.

Also the German historian Michael Ley (author of "Apokalyptische Bewegungen in der Moderne, Der Nationalsozialismus als Politische Religion" points to this connection when he stresses: (In the Nazis' view) "the (world's) spiritual renewal is manifested in the so-called Third Reich and the coming Millennial kingdom".

The quote “You are seeing the King of the South come together with lightning speed . . ." was taken straight from one of Hagee's worldwide-broadcasted sermons. I can't just add something to a quoted citation (but you can conceptually augment it yourself).

Sir/Madam, CUFI's "25 staff and 1 million members" do not make this organization much of threat--regardless of the number of channels that broadcast their message. To hold them and their version of an Apocalypse up as representative of the larger Christian movement is the "tail wagging the dog" (to use a favorite American saying).

You've gone to Godwin's sooner than expected in tarring an entire belief system.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law).

Allow me to restate your original premise (correct as needed): Millenarianism is shared by multiple cultures and that the West witnesses it via Christians while the East experiences it via Muslims, with a lot of smaller groups with some version of it in between. Like CUFI in the West.

The Christians are being represented, in your opinion by the CUFI--a small minority not responsible for ANY deaths that we can find. However, the Muslim Apocalyptically-driven terror you have not addressed with near the vigor--and yet they're responsible for almost all terrorist attacks, and all in the name of their god, Allah or his prophet Mohammed.

And the Muslims that strike in the name of The Madi/12th Imam actually kill people, whereas the CUFI talks about defense of Israel. Stats on the number of deaths the CUFI has caused ?

The question: why the disparity in your comparison ?

I've noticed this line of reasoning throughout this site--corner case scenarios inflated to equate to match reality. In this case you're alluding to the CUFI being the equivalent to Islamists. Yet the statistics on terrorism in the name of god are far, FAR greater in the Muslim column than the Christian.

That CUFI appear to be a set of clowns is not in dispute, but putting the same red nose and white make up on all Christians is intellectually dishonest.

Actually you're correct, the three main Abrahamic religions are based on end-time theology, however, not so the other main religions, Buddhism, Hinduism and Shintoism. Most of Europe's Protestant Christendom as well as mainstream Catholicism don't follow end-time scenarios.

This was different in the middle of the fourteenth century, when the Franciscan friar John of Rupescissa sent the dramatic warning to his followers that "the last days were coming soon" and that "the apocalypse was near". But even then, in the still so-called dark ages of knowledge, the official church deemed the man insane (which could not silence the friar's apocalyptic message).

In general, religious figures who preached nearing of end-times were hardly rare in the late Middle Ages, but Rupescissa's teachings were unique, in many ways resembling modern American end-time preachers. His melding of apocalyptic prophecy and quasi-scientific inquiry gave rise to a new genre of cosmology of heaven and earth. As is today the case with American Christian Zionism, he claimed that his teachings and remedies were a proven scientific part of the world order, able to act as a defense against the plagues and wars of the last days; as today's end-time ministries his teachings claimed to represented a convergence between science and religion.

As it is now, an endless number of American TV/radio stations and internet blogs are preaching the end-time . . . and as now it was 'big business' back then too.

But apart from some mentioned end-time prophets of the past, this mass-phenomenon now arose after WW II on the North American continent. The countless American 'Rapture Forums' are witness of.

Here are some recent headlines:
"Why I Believe Jesus Will Return in My Lifetime - Endtime Ministries ..."
or "Will the Next Pope Be the False Prophet?"
or they ask hypocritical (and self-fulfilling: "Is another Jewish Holocaust near?"

"You've gone to Godwin's sooner than expected in tarring an entire belief system."
.
And you seem to be someone whose right hand doesn't know what his left just ordered. A while ago you asked for citations ("it would be helpful if you have citations"), . . . and when I post relevant citations you start accusing me of "gone to Godwin's sooner than expected in tarring an entire belief system...".
.
* First, these weren't my 'Godwin-words', but quotes from the most prominent American rapture preacher, as requested by you, and
* Second, throughout my posting I was referring solely to apocalyptic end-time preachers, certainly not "all Christians" - and especially not to the Catholic church.

E.C.:"This looks more like a corner case minority group with very little power".

Quote Hagee: "We are Christians united for Israel. United for Israel began in February 2006 with 400 Evangelical leaders in San Antonio, today we are the largest pro-Israel (?) organization in America with over 1.25 million members who are ready to respond to the needs of Israel".
(What Hagee didn't say at this occasion is, how did God get the Jewish people back to the land of Israel? Hagee stated earlier: “The answer is given in Jeremiah 16, verse 15 and following: the answer is God sends fishers and hunters".)

Do I have to explain again who the 'fishers' are and who the 'hunters' in the Christian Zionist prophetic world view?

Do I have to explain again that "25 staff and 1 million" people do not constitute a serious challenge for forcing change in the M.E. ? Especially when those Christian Zionists haven't done anything but talk. Equating them to the murderous zealots who actually do kill others is weak.

Please compare and contrast the beliefs AND actions between the Muslim Millennials and those of the Christian Zionists. I think we can safely say that the first acts on their beliefs ergo all the terrorism, murder and mayhem. The Christians may espouse similar apocalyptic views, but do they act on them ? Where are the citations ? Talking is one thing, terrorism is another.

I agree that Muslim terrorism construes the biggest threat for our feeling of security (while the sheer casualty numbers suggest it should be the daily car trip between home and work).

However, Iranian Islam contributed next to nothing to world terrorism. It is antagonistic to (Sunni-led) Al-Qaeda and doesn't support other forms of global terrorism. Hamas is a strictly localized political movement; yes politically militant, but not a global terrorist organization. It's rather Saudi and Kuwaiti oil money that finances the global terror networks. Almost all 9/11 terrorists were holding Saudi passports.

On the other hand, to claim that only a small fraction of America's Protestant Christians are 'end-time disciples' is pure ignorance on your side. So far, I haven't met a single 'born-again' Christian who doesn't believe in the soon to come rapture.

The reason for that is simple: A 'born-again' Christian is one who became convinced in the doctrine of the imminent rapture and only then began to fear he/she could be left behind if he doesn't manage to shed off the wanton skin of his past. This purification process, I call it the shedding of the wanton skin, is called "being born again" in American "Evangelical communities".

Preachers create purposely the necessary end-time panic which enables them to drive the sheep into the coral' . . . and they point to the events in Middle East, often creating a soon-to-be WW III scenario as the necessary apocalyptic prerequisite for the rapture.

Often their line of argument goes as follows: The first 'sign' that officially marked the 'End Times' was the re-gathering of the nation of Israel back into her land after 'the hunt', the holocaust. As evidence they point to Matt. 24:32,33 and to Jeremiah 16:16 ("Behold, I will send for many fishers ...). This, so their claim, was a sure prophecy that had to be fulfilled!

They insist that all relevant Bible passages point to the times we are living in right now or will be shortly. These are supposedly milestones that are bringing us closer and closer to that appointed day when the Rapture takes place.

And then they usually ask their audience in an imputing way: What do you do AFTER the Rapture has taken place and you realize that you were left behind? - They themselves give also the answer: First of all, the reason "why" you were left behind is simply because "you are not a born-again Christian". "If you've been left behind you need to get saved. You can still get saved, but it is highly unlikely", the rapture preachers inject fear into their audience, and go on: "The wicked idiot people laughed in Noah's face, mocking him". "Anyone who refuses to listen to the TRUTH is an idiot" (these are the exact words of Evangelist David J. Steward).

In America the belief in the rapture became popular in wider circles during the 1970s. This was in part due to the books of Hal Lindsey, including 'The Late Great Planet Earth', which has reportedly sold between 15 million and 35 million copies in the USA alone.

Lindsey was the first in America to proclaim that the rapture was imminent, based on world conditions at the time. The Cold War figured prominently in his predictions of impending Armageddon. Today the Muslim world has replaced the Soviet Union in their end-time scenario which now allegedly points to a nuclear WW III that starts in Israel.

Back then also other aspects of 1970s global politics were seen as having been predicted in the Bible. Lindsey suggested, for example, that the seven-headed beast with ten horns, cited in the Book of Revelation, was the European Economic Community, Lindsey came under pressure for failing to offer an explanation when the EEC's successor organization, the EU, was in the 1970s expanded to more than ten member states. Today Lindsey would need to invent a twenty-seven-headed Biblical beast for a proper allegory since the EU has now 27 members. LOL.

Then in 1995, the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture (before the Final Judgement) was further popularized in America by Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" series of books, which sold tens of millions (!!) of copies in the US and were made into several successful movies.

All this 'craziness' is reason why 'the doctrine of the rapture' continues to be the most important component of American Evangelical Christian eschatology.

Thus, here in America it is certainly the dog wagging the Republican tail . . . and not the other way around.

Concerning your question how many Americans are Evangelical/Born again Christians (out of a total population of 300 million), below are the results of several studies and polls taken between 2005 and 2012. (Of peculiar interest is the development of the numbers over the period of 8 years).

2012 Gallup Poll: 129 Million (43% of US pop.)
2010 ABC/Beliefnet: 114 million (38%)
2009 Pew Research Center: 111 million (37%)
2009 Baylor University: 111 million (37%)
2007 Wheton College Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals: 100 million (33%)
2005 University of Akron: 78 million (26%)

You could have researched this yourself, but anyway, here is the answer for your convenience.
The numbers are taken from a recent PEW survey (Dec '11) and from an updated Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism):

Quote: "The United States has still the largest concentration of Evangelicals by country, with roughly a quarter of the world's Evangelicals . . . "

According to a Pew Forum study on global Christianity, 285,480,000 or 13.1 percent of all Christians are Evangelicals.[http://www.pewforum.org/files/2011/12/Christianity-fullreport-web.pdf].

PEW corrected its findings for the United States down from a 2009 study to now (Dec 2011) 28.9% of the American population, or 91.76 million in total number, which is a little less than a quarter of the world count for Evangelical Christians. The next most populous Evangelical community is Brazil with 26.3% of its population or 51.33 million in total.

This is somewhat lower than the figures given by the Evangelical umbrella organization, the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), which stated in its 2006 published "History of World Evangelical Alliance": "WEA is a network of churches in 128 nations that have each formed an Evangelical alliance and over 100 international organizations joining together to give a worldwide identity, voice and platform to an estimated more than 420 million Evangelical Christians" (end quote).

WEA states that it supports its members to work and proselytize together globally.

Wikipedia: "In most of the world, the 21st century growth rate of Evangelical Christians is faster than the population growth rate" (maybe not so in the US, where a majority of the pop. growth comes from immigration, which is mostly Catholic and Muslim).

While virtually all Evangelical Christians support the end-time scenario depicted in the Book of Revelation and the belief that we're either already in the midst of the "end-times" or they are soon to begin, it would be unfair to claim that all Evangelicals 'promote' a man-induced Apocalypse (e.g. by yearning for a global military conflict or by actively supporting such horrifying idea). - In a similar way as it would be unfair to assert that all Muslims actively promote 'Jihad' in order to accelerate the dawn of 'Yawm ad-Din', the Day of Judgement, a scenario which is supposedly preceded by the appearance of the Mahdi atop a white stallion. (BTW, Muslims believe that Imam Mahdi will then triumph over Masih ad-Dajja ("the false messiah") with the help of the real Messiah Jesus (or Isa, as Muslims call him) . . . and NOT AGAINST him as Evangelical leaders often claim.

However, looking at it the other way 'round, it is safe to say that for many of the Evangelical leaders the 'promotion' of a WW III scenario doesn't seem absurd at all.

Washington Blog, a popular web publication, boiled this problem (ethical conflict) down to its essence.

February 18, 2012 the online magazine ran an article on global financial collapse, which was subtitled:
MILLIONS OF EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS WANT TO START WW III TO SPEED THE 'SECOND COMING' - ATHEIST NEOCONS ARE USING RELIGION TO RILE THEM UP TO JUSTIFY WAR AGAINST IRAN.

Maybe the assumption that ALL American Evangelical leaders want this is a little far-fetched, but many of them do.

Thank you for the update--but no where in there did it state "where all the Evangelicals are coming from."

Your data was specific that Evangelical membership came from neither Catholic nor Muslim immigrants; it was specific that Evangelicalism was slower in the US than the population. I was just curious whether this growth was due to conversion rates or high birth rates.

I really liked your comparison between Christian and Muslim membership generally not wanting a global conflict. I'm sure there are those on both sides who do. Just as there are likely a lot of atheistic "Preppers" who look forward to the same.

As for Washington Blog--that's quite a stretch to say "Millions of Evangelical Christians WANT TO START WWIII to speed the 'second coming.'" This reads more like a TruthOut article than any legitimate publication. Big difference between "hoping" WWIII to start that "Wanting to START it."

I see no evidence of physical aggression or attacks on anyone, place or culture by Evangelicals--certainly nothing to suggest that they "Want to start WWII." I'm sure some hope it starts and are preparing like the Preppers, but preparation is a long way from actually planting a bomb or flying a plane into a building.

E.C.: "I see no evidence of physical aggression or attacks on anyone, place or culture by Evangelicals--certainly nothing to suggest that they "Want to start WWII."

This is probably because you - indeed - don't know WHO they are. Even populist preachers à la John Hagee are merely barking dogs in their yard. "Physical aggression or attacks" are rather signs of weakness. Those who walk the corridors of real power don't need to resort to 'stone age methods'.

D. Michael Lindsay, then Sociologist at Rice University and currently President of Gordon College, a private elite university on Boston's North Shore, published a book in the same year (2007) with the title:
“Faith in the Halls of Power”,
about which The Economist Aug 23, 2007 concluded, (quote) "anybody who wants to understand the nexus between God and power in modern America should start here!"

Surely the main concern is that such talk of events that everyone (even religious people) knows are nonsensical still has an appeal? Current christian churches also suffer from this - this of the 'miracles' of sainthood (lots of them recently - as if life were not miraculous enough) and opposition to belief in evolution, not to mention global warming.

What is the human attraction to believing in the transparently false? Are we all the White Queen and need to believe impossible things before breakfast?

Yes, and the really scary thing is that when the fundamentalist fruitcakes in Pakistan or Israel decide to nuke someone they will say "but God told me to!".

This is the same reasoning the crusaders used when going to the 'Holy' Land "to free Jerusalem from the infidel", and the British used when adding another colony to their empire - "we're taking civilization and Christianity to the savages".

In our hands there is no such thing as a safe nuke. The US almost dropped one on North Carolina by mistake, what are the chances some wild-eyed nutter won't use it on someone who believes in a different God, and therefore threatens their entire world view?

Yes, and the really scary thing is that when the AGW fundamentalist fruitcakes spouting "No Oil !" in America decide that there's too many humans that they'll see it's far easier to kill off a bunch of us Brown people...they will say "But Al Gore told me to !"
This is the same reasoning used by the Left that got you Americans into most of your costly wars, the costly of which you termed "The War on Poverty." The Left carries the New White Man's Burden by trying to change the rest of the world to their viewpoint--just leave us alone.
Who knows what a "wild-eyed nutter", like you, for example, might do if he had total control ?
Oh wait. We do know:
1. A 'death row' list of those who deny AGW: http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
2. Their sentence: Death.http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/prof-richard-parncutt-death-pe...
We are grateful that nutters like you do not have access to WMD...see how you'd use it ?

Sir, the UN is the broker in skimming $$Billions from your rich country and sending it to countries like mine, all in the name of AGW. Of course they say AGW is real (man caused). No on is arguing that this den of thieves believes that. The argument is whether the UN is playing it's typically ingenious role in which they have bought and paid for the scientific results...or whether AGW is real.

Remember: I'm arguing the former and you the latter; please keep up.

LOL, on one hand it's an obvious shell game; on the other hand I'm tempted to take your stolen monies.

And what's with the non-sequitur about God and Darwin ? A Red Herring ?

Mr. khalaji is so correct in pointing out the threat to religious establishment by the presence of Imam. Imam's return would mean the mullah's cannot even claim "unemployment benefits", and not just in Iran. Surges in apocalyptic talk might have surfaced time and again with no visible sign suggesting it's authenticity, but that doesn't translate into it's debunking as a historical process/event. May I suggest that the current "cooling down" in and around Syria has all the signs that political establishments around the world are quite unsettled by "superstitions" of parousia. However, the place to watch is Pakistan. It'll take a massive hit.

And what about the apocalyptical politicians in Israel that keep talking of their existential threats? I guess its true that whenever and wherever politicians can't deliver real results they focus on delivering thick dose of superstition.

The Washington Institute for near east studies, is directly tied to IAAC and all it does is peddle a good does of its own superstition to us. America needs to learn to separate its geo political desires and strategic interests from what is in strategic interest of Israel. There is no such thing as ties that bind, when one partner is footing all the bills and the other partner is footing all the benefit

Not being either Republican or Christian fundamentalist (basicallly the same thing) I don't make a distinction between the goodness of Iran and Israel.

They are just two of the many Middle Eastern tribes that hate each other. I do not expect to go to Jerusalem for the rapture and get lifted into heaven with my semitic brethren, so don't mistake me for Paul Wolfowitz.

Iran has never invaded any of it's neighbors (not even during the Iran-Iraq war, a war in which Iraq use gas against Iran, an action the US did not condemn).

Israel, on the other hand, has invaded Palestine, Lebanon and still occupies the Golan Heights. So based on the evidence it seems clear that Israel poses a greater threat to it's neighbors than Iran does. Oh, and Israel has nukes.

Unfortunately for Bibi Netanyahu, no-one outside the US watches Fox "News" (aka The Voice of Israel), which is why Europeans view Israel with the same distaste as they view Iran...they only have the evidence to go on, not the propaganda.

I am aware that as far as Bibi is concerned (accustomed as he is to compliant American presidents) Obama might as well be Beelzebub. But there is no reason why the US should shape it's foreign policy around the needs of a tiny and troublesome tribe in the Middle East, one that continually threatens to drag the US into yet another pointless war.

Esteban Cafe makes no mention of WMD threats from Israel, which won't admit that it has deliverable nuclear weapons (as well as chemical weapons), won't put them under the IAEA, has a savage colonial right-wing government, and has violated too many UN resolutions to count. As opposed to Iran which has not attacked another country in a century, had an elected secular government toppled by the CIA in 1953, was invaded by Iraq and then subjected to chemical weapons with American and Israeli connivance in the horrific 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, and has repeatedly argued for a nuclear weapons free Middle East. Of course Israel won't have that because it wants to keep its nukes. Come on, Mr. Esteban Cafe. I won't call what you're peddling "superstition", but I'll refrain from giving it an appropriate name.

Mr. Esteban Cafe, my answer to your question (as it is framed: "Would you sleep better in Iran with Israel having nukes or, would you sleep better in Israel with Iran holding nukes ?") is undoubtedly the opposite of yours, so let that say what it will about both of us. However, as I said in my previous post, my position is that there should be a nuclear-free Middle East. That is Iran's position. It is not Israel's, and I suspect that it is not yours. So where does that leave moral equivalency?

Sir, Israel does not breath out threatenings against its neighbors as did pre-WW II Germany; Iran does. Israel cannot afford to lose one battle--that would be the war for them--ergo, they are armed to the teeth. That is, they live in a rough neighborhood and are armed equivalent to the threat: there are over 50 Muslim countries on record who are anti-Israeli. If Israel is so bad, why are so many Muslims seeking citizenship ? Moreover, Israel must guard against Islamic saboteurs and cannot afford your western view of rights...but tell me: is it their free press, right to vote and all the other rights that exist in few ME countries that bothers you ?

As for a nuclear free ME ? With the duplicity of Iran and their nuclear program--and the embargos to which all Western countries agree (and why do they agree ? Right: evidence of evil intent), would YOU give up your nukes ? That is the same thinking you Americans use with your gun control--asking your sane citizens to disarm and depend on the police. I think Israel has seen the US/EU and UN naiveté in dealing with Iran and will not risk their existential existence to it. Tell me true, were you Israel would you disarm ?

We could go on about the human rights violations in Iran, how your limp president let those thousands disappear who were seeking freedom less than two years ago; the morality squads who persecute, prosecute women and eventually execute Gays, etc. But those are things best swept under the liberal rug, are they not ?

Sir, there are no "WMD threats" from Israel because it does not threaten anyone. This is why many of your saner US states allow concealed carry: sane people with guns are not threat to anyone; it is the insane that are a problem.
The only one's arguing for a gun free America are those who do not understand this; the only one's arguing for a nuke free M.E. are those who are building them under your nose. Why the embargos if Iran is not a threat ? Your entire West agrees with them because Iran is a threat. This is your moral equivalence at work again. And note that there is a difference between defending oneself and wanton aggression.
That you bare your past American foibles (re the CIA, et al) in the M.E. is your business...are you asking ME to defend them ? That is odd logic and makes reason stare.

I figured Esteban Cafe's response would be something like this. Can't Israel at least admit it has nuclear weapons (everyone knows it anyway) and put them under IAEA supervision? No-one is asking that Israel disarm. The subject was nuclear weapons, and WMDs in general, and - potentially - a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East under UN supervision. How about a nuclear-free world? So Israel, exceptionally, wants to keep nuclear weapons to defend itself - to be the Middle East's policeman like the US (and the UK and France) need to keep theirs to be the world's policemen. As for duplicity, how about the duplicity of Israel and its "occupation by settlements" program? How anyone backing Israel could refer to human rights violations in another country, that really escapes me. I'll just mention Gideon Levy's "The Punishment of Gaza", other writers in Haaretz,and Justice Goldstone's report. There are many others, e.g. David Grossman, Amos Oz, Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and Chris Hedges. Israel does not threaten? How often has it threatened to attack Iran and urged the US to do so by threatening US politicians with electoral defeat if they don't follow the current Israeli government's desires? It has attacked Syria and Lebanon, as you know. You're in favour of "concealed carry"? That figures. The international military right-winger is equivalent to an American gun-toting right-winger - not to the Canadian principles of "peace, order, and good government" which I much prefer. And who decides whether the concealed-carry person is sane? Who decides which people and countries are sane? The world you describe as sane and rational is a world of lawless gangs (and rogue countries) all armed to the teeth, all justified as necessary to defend themselves. Whatever that is, it's not what I would call a civilization.

Does your American Navy admit to whether their ships have nukes when they pull into a port in my country ? Nope. And why not ? Because it changes defense strategy. (You still in HS ?). If Israel threatened to destroy another country with their nukes then you'd have a point and they should come under the control of a dependable organization so they don't get used. (cf Syrian WMD)

The point you're not getting is that they do not threaten anyone and supply your country with a loyal ally. Your utopian ideal of a nuclear-free world always--ALWAYS--begins with the Western nations disarming first, right ? Never does it begin with the truly dangerous, threatening countries like Pakistan, N. Korea, etc. Nope, they'll disarm AFTER the US and Israel disarm, right. LOL, your naiveté clearly places you in High School.

Israel occupies lands it took in war--a historically acceptable result of the aggressor getting his arse handed to him. I will say it is disappointing to see Israel bow to pressure to hand it back. That only encourages aggression--like you limp presidents handling of Benghazi, Syria, Libya and other "lead from behind" war scenarios. Bad guys do not care one whit that you're showing good form, they'll shove it up your arse the moment they feel they can get away with it. The same is true on the individual level--as you'll find out when you get to High School.

This has application to concealed carry (cops are too heavy to carry, so they carry a gun). Cops do not stop crime, they report it; ergo, the chalk outlines and CSI like organizations. They're great, but if you're already dead from your plethora of criminals, they're not much good to you, capice ?

As for the list of Useful Idiots you named, I about spewed my drink across my screen. Truly you jest--I've read the: idiots all.

As for Israel "threatening" Iran ? Again, you jest: Iran threatened them. As a "one bomb state" are they to wait until they're attacked. You truly are a high school student, aren't you ?

The "Canadian Principles" of peace, order, good government ? This is getting tiring. The reason they can adopt such flute and butterfly thinking is because they're under America's protective umbrella, as are the ankle biters of Europe. In the real world the US and it's nukes prevent a LOT of aggression. The fact that you guys act aggressively when you should not is YOUR problem--please don't ask me to defend your actions.

Sane...like a fox. I wonder who speaks for the thousands that recently disappeared during the "Arab Spring" ? You ? Who speaks for the Gays executed for their choice ? Who speaks for those detained and tortured for their beliefs that differ from Islam ? Who speaks for those women who are persecuted, tortured and raped by "Morality Squads" ?

Since you're obviously part of the Israel lobby, judging by your other comments, I'd point out that the mass cruelty inflicted upon Palestinians is far worse than even the most barbaric morality squad beatings in Iran. The Haredi sects that have much control in Israeli politics worry me no less than any Ayatollah.

"...obviously part of the Israel lobby..." Because I question, doubt and contend with stupid statement makes me part of a lobby ? Is that how your American Left works now ?

The "mass cruelty inflicted upon the Palestinians" ? Please. And from what I read the Haredi you speak of are a corner case small minority. I think you're inflating abuse on one hand and influence on the other.

Perhaps not an institutional part. But a single-minded determination to defend Israel despite laughably obvious ethical problems (like, say, alternating occupations and long-running sieges of Gaza) means you are labelled as part of a lobby. "Just asking questions" doesn't get you out of being absurdly biased.

If you don't think the Haredi have influence you should ask Bibi on why it is so hard to get them part of the Israeli draft. This "small minority" should easily be forced into it, no?

Sir, Israel lives in a neighborhood unlike anything you live in (unless it's Detroit). Yes, I do support their right of existence. I think they're a bulwark against the hideous tide of fanaticism that comes out of the Islamic world.

You're missing two towers--and 3k of your people--as a result of that fanaticism. But that does not factor into your myopic view, or at least you have not brought it up.

Ethical problems ? Absolutely: Israel is usually in a fight for its existence, surrounded by enemies who, if there were no Israel, would be at each other's throats--and in fact are (cf "Arab Spring"). They cannot afford your San Francisco Rules--they're at war. I believe your Democrat Hero FDR placed your own Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps during WW II, yes ?

Who causes 96% of WW terrorism: Israel or Muslims ? How do excuse this divide ? Yet you would go after the only real democracy in the M.E. but let slide the egregious wrongs of those in the Muslim Jungle. Is it the Israeli's free press, right to vote (one that actually counts), etc that bothers you ? By comparison, there is more freedom in little Israel than in all the Muslim countries surrounding it.

You really must travel to the M.E. sometime. You come from the outside and judge Israel according to your very limited experience and from the biased reporting you actually believe. Have you ever dodged bullets?

Biased ? So who's biased ? You speak as those who have very limited life experience...or who have an American Uni "Grievance Studies Degree" where there is zero intellectual diversity and all students are taught the same leftist drivel. I know; I attended two of them.

You may live comfortably in your divorced mother's basement, which if true is fine, but based on your writing, your experience in the world is minor and you should not speak of what you do not know.

Yes yes, crazy uncultured neighbours aiming to destroy society, necessary to lock them away in a ghetto, lesser of two evils, lots of other racist statements bla bla bla. It's funny because the Israelis have apparently learned well from Hitler's Third Reich and have appropriated both the message and tactics to use against Muslims. There was a story recently about some Israelis decrying African Jew immigration because they wanted "racial purity"...

In the US, most terrorism is done by right-wing white nutcases like Timothy McVeigh. Most Islamic terrorism comes from the US meddling in the region and supporting various rebel groups (the mujahideen come to mind). The world is complex - yes, I agree, which is why I don't stoop to idiotic blanket statements against Muslims and Arabs.

When was the last left-wing terror attack in the US? There WERE, yes, but not in the last couple decades. I also am not defending America somehow (where do you see that?). Their racial policies are brutal, especially the war on drugs.

"..Refugee activists say some government leaders are fostering the intolerance and anger toward Africans, who are accused of committing crimes, stealing jobs from Israelis and potentially undermining the Jewish character of the country.

At a Tel Aviv rally last week, hundreds of Israelis gathered to protest the presence of African refugees. Right-wing lawmaker Miri Regev called Sudanese arrivals a "cancer" on Israel and urged immigration officials to deport all African "infiltrators."

Of course they aren't any different than the rest of us, as a people or as a culture. But their political system and their nation state has done some pretty terrible things. Of course, they aren't breaking any world records for evil - but for some reason you aren't allowed to mention any of it without having a pack of Israel-defenders descend upon you.

Trivia & generational information: Hassan Rohani, born Hassan Fereydoun, was born on 12th November 1948, two days before Charles, Prince of Wales. Rohani looks much older, doesn't he? Just because of his beard?

People who are like this, even on an Internet discussion forum are rather disquieting and not to be trusted, but in international politics and as prime ministers of countries like Iran, they could be dangerous.

"There was much end-of-the-world talk in the air towards the end of the first Christian millennium,(...)"

---

This was enormously exaggerated, especially in the 19th century... almost a millennium after the events supposedly took place.

",(...) who now categorically rejected the “terrors of the year 1000″ as a romantic legend. There was, these historians argued, simply no evidence to support a picture of an entire society quaking in fear at the approach of a date that, they contended, few contemporaries even knew about. Most of the documents invoked by the “terrors” school turned out, upon close examination, either to be about a different date (1010, 1033) or were later texts reflecting the composer’s fantasy rather than any evidence from the year 1000. Moreover, nothing in Scripture gave any reason to expect the Apocalypse in 1000. The scriptural millennium, they pointed out, was not a chronological marker, but the period of a messianic kingdom to come; and even that notion had disappeared from Christian beliefs since Augustine had banned it in the fifth century. To the contrary, nothing in the sources distinguished the year 1000 from any other year."

Besides, though AD (Year 1, a.u.c. DCCLIV, but it was wrong, anyway) had already been adopted in much of Europe, in certain parts like the (Christian) Iberian peninsula, mainly the Kingdom of León and the Kingdom of Navarre, they still used the Spanish Era (Hispanic Era, Caesar Era, 38 BC), so the Hispanic Year 1000 ('Era M') took place in AD 962, and when AD M, the 'famous' Year 1000, arrived, León, Navarre, etc were already in 1038 ('Era MXXXVIII') and couldn't care less anyway!

Another aspect of millenarianism is the 'doomesday preppers' and survivalists in the US and the gun culture associated with it. The preppers seem most worried about the supposed threat posed by their own government which tells us something about the alienation they feel in their own society. Throw fundamenalist religion into the mix and America and Iran start to look quite similar.

What are you talking about ? Are you in the right thread ? Is this an American joke ? Please explain.

And you're still recommending yourself ? LOL. That must be a hold over from your schooling, yes ? All that self-esteem philosophy--not based on anything you actually accomplish. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, but you're not coming across as a 'winner' which most Americans have been told they are.

Well, guess what, Mr Khalaji is a researcher in Washington institute for near east policy which is (according to "John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government) as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States.

It's just as silly to believe that a change in tone is a substantive change in meaning. This is the same Hassan Rohani who ran the Supreme National Security Council from 1989 to 2005, not a short period, not a time of moderation at home or abroad. This is also the same Rohani who was Iran's top nuclear negotiator. It's tough to trust comments made - sometimes they're made up or stripped of context - but his apparent goal was to advance Iran's nuclear program by engaging the West with the specific intent to hold them at arms-length.

I would say the shift in tone is more likely an attempt to get exactly what Iran has wanted through different means and specifically through means that Rohani has already demonstrated worked by forestalling Western attempts to stop their nuclear development.

I am entirely uneducated or at best undereducated about the religion and the geopolitics involved on the topic. I read the post and then your comment and find your thoughts convincing. "Forestalling" would seem consistent with historical pattern. Style is secondary. Trust can at best be tenuous when religion and politics insist on being bed-fellows.